Search

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text Objective: : We compare consensus recommendations for 5 surgical procedures to prospectively collected patient consumption data. To address local variation, we combined data from multiple hospitals across the country. Summary of Background Data: One approach to address the opioid epidemic has been to create prescribing consensus reports for common surgical procedures. However, it is unclear how these guidelines compare to patient-reported data from multiple hospital systems. Methods: Prospective observational studies of surgery patients were completed between 3/2017 and 12/2018. Data were collected utilizing post-discharge surveys and chart reviews from 5 hospitals (representing 3 hospital systems) in 5 states across the USA. Prescribing recommendations for 5 common surgical procedures identified in 2 recent consensus reports were compared to the prospectively collected aggregated data. Surgeries included: laparoscopic cholecystectomy, open inguinal hernia repair, laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, partial mastectomy without sentinel lymph node biopsy, and partial mastectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy. Results: Eight hundred forty-seven opioid-naïve patients who underwent 1 of the 5 studied procedures reported counts of unused opioid pills after discharge. Forty-one percent did not take any opioid medications, and across all surgeries, the median consumption was 3 5 mg oxycodone pills or less. Generally, consensus reports recommended opioid quantities that were greater than the 75th percentile of consumption, and for 2 procedures, recommendations exceeded the 90th percentile of consumption. Conclusions: Although consensus recommendations were an important first step to address opioid prescribing, our data suggests that following these recommendations would result in 47%–56% of pills prescribed remaining unused. Future multi-institutional efforts should be directed toward refining and personalizing prescribing recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Surgery at night (incision time 17:00 to 07:00 hours) may lead to increased postoperative mortality and morbidity. Mechanisms explaining this association remain unclear. Methods We conducted a multicentre retrospective cohort study of adult patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery with general anaesthesia at two major, competing tertiary care hospital networks. In primary analysis, we imputed missing data and determined whether exposure to night surgery affects 30-day mortality using a mixed-effects model with individual anaesthesia and surgical providers as random effects. Secondary outcomes were 30-day morbidity and the mediating effect of blood transfusion rates and provider handovers on the effect of night surgery on outcomes. We further tested for effect modification by surgical setting. Results Among 350 235 participants in the primary imputed cohort, the mortality rate was 0.9% (n=2804/322 327) after day and 3.4% (n=940/27 908) after night surgery. Night surgery was associated with an increased risk of mortality (ORadj 1.26, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.38, p<0.001). In secondary analyses, night surgery was associated with increased morbidity (ORadj 1.41, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.48, p<0.001). The proportion of patients receiving intraoperative blood transfusion and anaesthesia handovers were higher during night-time, mediating 9.4% (95% CI 4.7% to 14.2%, p<0.001) of the effect of night surgery on 30-day mortality and 8.4% (95% CI 6.7% to 10.1%, p<0.001) of its effect on morbidity. The primary association was modified by the surgical setting (p-for-interaction<0.001), towards a greater effect in patients undergoing ambulatory/sameday surgery (ORadj 1.81, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.35) compared with inpatients (ORadj 1.17, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.34). Conclusions Night surgery was associated with an increased risk of postoperative mortality and morbidity. The effect was independent of case acuity and was mediated by potentially preventable factors: higher blood transfusion rates and more frequent provider handovers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rib fractures commonly result from traumatic injury and often require hospitalization for pain control and supportive pulmonary care. Although the use of mobile health technology to share patient-generated health data has increased, it remains limited in patients with traumatic injuries. We sought to assess the feasibility of mobile health tracking in patients with rib fractures by using a smartphone app to monitor postdischarge recovery. We encountered patient, institutional, and process-related obstacles that limited app use. The success of future work requires the acknowledgment of these limitations and the use of an implementation science framework to effectively integrate technological tools for personalized trauma care., (©Margaret T Berrigan, Brendin R Beaulieu-Jones, Rachel Baines, Seth Berkowitz, Heather Evans, Gabriel A Brat. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 31.05.2024.)

Background: Post-COVID-19 condition (colloquially known as "long COVID-19") characterized as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 has no universal clinical case definition. Recent efforts have focused on understanding long COVID-19 symptoms, and electronic health record (EHR) data provide a unique resource for understanding this condition. The introduction of the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code U09.9 for "Post COVID-19 condition, unspecified" to identify patients with long COVID-19 has provided a method of evaluating this condition in EHRs; however, the accuracy of this code is unclear., Objective: This study aimed to characterize the utility and accuracy of the U09.9 code across 3 health care systems-the Veterans Health Administration, the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center-against patients identified with long COVID-19 via a chart review by operationalizing the World Health Organization (WHO) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definitions., Methods: Patients who were COVID-19 positive with either a U07.1 ICD-10 code or positive polymerase chain reaction test within these health care systems were identified for chart review. Among this cohort, we sampled patients based on two approaches: (1) with a U09.9 code and (2) without a U09.9 code but with a new onset long COVID-19-related ICD-10 code, which allows us to assess the sensitivity of the U09.9 code. To operationalize the long COVID-19 definition based on health agency guidelines, symptoms were grouped into a "core" cluster of 11 commonly reported symptoms among patients with long COVID-19 and an extended cluster that captured all other symptoms by disease domain. Patients having ≥2 symptoms persisting for ≥60 days that were new onset after their COVID-19 infection, with ≥1 symptom in the core cluster, were labeled as having long COVID-19 per chart review. The code's performance was compared across 3 health care systems and across different time periods of the pandemic., Results: Overall, 900 patient charts were reviewed across 3 health care systems. The prevalence of long COVID-19 among the cohort with the U09.9 ICD-10 code based on the operationalized WHO definition was between 23.2% and 62.4% across these health care systems. We also evaluated a less stringent version of the WHO definition and the CDC definition and observed an increase in the prevalence of long COVID-19 at all 3 health care systems., Conclusions: This is one of the first studies to evaluate the U09.9 code against a clinical case definition for long COVID-19, as well as the first to apply this definition to EHR data using a chart review approach on a nationwide cohort across multiple health care systems. This chart review approach can be implemented at other EHR systems to further evaluate the utility and performance of the U09.9 code., (©Monika Maripuri, Andrew Dey, Jacqueline Honerlaw, Chuan Hong, Yuk-Lam Ho, Vidisha Tanukonda, Alicia W Chen, Vidul Ayakulangara Panickan, Xuan Wang, Harrison G Zhang, Doris Yang, Malarkodi Jebathilagam Samayamuthu, Michele Morris, Shyam Visweswaran, Brendin Beaulieu-Jones, Rachel Ramoni, Sumitra Muralidhar, J Michael Gaziano, Katherine Liao, Zongqi Xia, Gabriel A Brat, Tianxi Cai, Kelly Cho. Originally published in the Online Journal of Public Health Informatics (https://ojphi.jmir.org/), 03.05.2024.)

Background: In electronic health records, patterns of missing laboratory test results could capture patients' course of disease as well as ​​reflect clinician's concerns or worries for possible conditions. These patterns are often understudied and overlooked. This study aims to identify informative patterns of missingness among laboratory data collected across 15 healthcare system sites in three countries for COVID-19 inpatients., Methods: We collected and analyzed demographic, diagnosis, and laboratory data for 69,939 patients with positive COVID-19 PCR tests across three countries from 1 January 2020 through 30 September 2021. We analyzed missing laboratory measurements across sites, missingness stratification by demographic variables, temporal trends of missingness, correlations between labs based on missingness indicators over time, and clustering of groups of labs based on their missingness/ordering pattern., Results: With these analyses, we identified mapping issues faced in seven out of 15 sites. We also identified nuances in data collection and variable definition for the various sites. Temporal trend analyses may support the use of laboratory test result missingness patterns in identifying severe COVID-19 patients. Lastly, using missingness patterns, we determined relationships between various labs that reflect clinical behaviors., Conclusion: In this work, we use computational approaches to relate missingness patterns to hospital treatment capacity and highlight the heterogeneity of looking at COVID-19 over time and at multiple sites, where there might be different phases, policies, etc. Changes in missingness could suggest a change in a patient's condition, and patterns of missingness among laboratory measurements could potentially identify clinical outcomes. This allows sites to consider missing data as informative to analyses and help researchers identify which sites are better poised to study particular questions., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: While acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication in COVID-19, data on post-AKI kidney function recovery and the clinical factors associated with poor kidney function recovery is lacking., Methods: A retrospective multi-centre observational cohort study comprising 12,891 hospitalized patients aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction from 1 January 2020 to 10 September 2020, and with at least one serum creatinine value 1-365 days prior to admission. Mortality and serum creatinine values were obtained up to 10 September 2021., Findings: Advanced age (HR 2.77, 95%CI 2.53-3.04, p < 0.0001), severe COVID-19 (HR 2.91, 95%CI 2.03-4.17, p < 0.0001), severe AKI (KDIGO stage 3: HR 4.22, 95%CI 3.55-5.00, p < 0.0001), and ischemic heart disease (HR 1.26, 95%CI 1.14-1.39, p < 0.0001) were associated with worse mortality outcomes. AKI severity (KDIGO stage 3: HR 0.41, 95%CI 0.37-0.46, p < 0.0001) was associated with worse kidney function recovery, whereas remdesivir use (HR 1.34, 95%CI 1.17-1.54, p < 0.0001) was associated with better kidney function recovery. In a subset of patients without chronic kidney disease, advanced age (HR 1.38, 95%CI 1.20-1.58, p < 0.0001), male sex (HR 1.67, 95%CI 1.45-1.93, p < 0.0001), severe AKI (KDIGO stage 3: HR 11.68, 95%CI 9.80-13.91, p < 0.0001), and hypertension (HR 1.22, 95%CI 1.10-1.36, p = 0.0002) were associated with post-AKI kidney function impairment. Furthermore, patients with COVID-19-associated AKI had significant and persistent elevations of baseline serum creatinine 125% or more at 180 days (RR 1.49, 95%CI 1.32-1.67) and 365 days (RR 1.54, 95%CI 1.21-1.96) compared to COVID-19 patients with no AKI., Interpretation: COVID-19-associated AKI was associated with higher mortality, and severe COVID-19-associated AKI was associated with worse long-term post-AKI kidney function recovery., Funding: Authors are supported by various funders, with full details stated in the acknowledgement section., Competing Interests: Dr Hanauer reported having developed an electronic resource of clinical synonyms, EMERSE, that is licensed by the University of Michigan and receiving a portion of the licensing fees for this resource outside the submitted work. Dr Omenn reported being an early investor and serving on the board of Angion Biomedica Corporation, New York, which has conducted clinical trials of drug candidates for overcoming acute kidney injury following cardiopulmonary surgery or kidney transplantation. The former was terminated early based on unsatisfactory efficacy/adverse effects assessment; the latter had insufficient benefit to warrant proposing a Phase III trial. The company is moving in other directions, to be determined. No further work on kidney is anticipated. Dr Holmes disclosed participation as an NIH/NIDDK T2 Coach R01DK113189. Dr Malovini disclosed being a shareholder of Biomeris s.r.l. Dr Bellazzi reported receiving honoraria from Pfizer, and disclosed being a shareholder of University of Pavia spin-off Biomeris. Dr Klann reports consulting fees from i2b2 tranSMART foundation, for work to enhance open-source data warehouse platform. He reports no direct relationship to this work, except that the data model for analysis in this manuscript was inspired by this platform., (© 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Post-discharge opioid consumption is a crucial patient-reported outcome informing opioid prescribing guidelines, but its collection is resource-intensive and vulnerable to inaccuracy due to nonresponse bias., Methods: We developed a post-discharge text message-to-web survey system for efficient collection of patient-reported pain outcomes. We prospectively recruited surgical patients at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts from March 2019 through October 2020, sending an SMS link to a secure web survey to quantify opioids consumed after discharge from hospitalization. Patient factors extracted from the electronic health record were tested for nonresponse bias and observable confounding. Following targeted learning-based nonresponse adjustment, procedure-specific opioid consumption quantiles (medians and 75th percentiles) were estimated and compared to a previous telephone-based reference survey., Results: 6553 patients were included. Opioid consumption was measured in 44% of patients (2868), including 21% (1342) through survey response. Characteristics associated with inability to measure opioid consumption included age, tobacco use, and prescribed opioid dose. Among the 10 most common procedures, median consumption was only 36% of the median prescription size; 64% of prescribed opioids were not consumed. Among those procedures, nonresponse adjustment corrected the median opioid consumption by an average of 37% (IQR: 7, 65%) compared to unadjusted estimates, and corrected the 75th percentile by an average of 5% (IQR: 0, 12%). This brought median estimates for 5/10 procedures closer to telephone survey-based consumption estimates, and 75th percentile estimates for 2/10 procedures closer to telephone survey-based estimates., Conclusions: SMS-recruited online surveying can generate reliable opioid consumption estimates after nonresponse adjustment using patient factors recorded in the electronic health record, protecting patients from the risk of inaccurate prescription guidelines., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors declare no competing interests.

Background: Many U.S. institutions have adopted postsurgical opioid-prescribing guidelines to standardize prescribing practices, and yet there is inherent variability in patients' opioid consumption after surgery. The utility of these guidelines is limited by the fact that some patients' needs will inevitably exceed them, and yet there are no evidence-based tools to help providers identify these patients. In this study we aimed to maximize the value of these guidelines by training machine learning models to predict patients whose needs will be met by these smaller recommended prescriptions, and patients who may require an additional degree of personalization. The aim of the present study was to develop predictive models for determining whether a surgical patient's postdischarge opioid requirement will fall above or below common opioid prescribing guidelines., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of surgical patients at one institution from 2017 to 2018. Patients were called after discharge to collect opioid consumption data. Machine learning models were used to identify outlier opioid consumers (ie, exceeding our institutional prescribing guidelines) using diagnosis codes, medical history, in-hospital opioid use, and perioperative factors as predictors. External validation was performed on opioid consumption data collected at a second institution from 2020 to 2021, and sensitivity analysis was performed using a third institution's prescribing guidelines., Results: The development and external validation cohorts included 1,867 and 498 patients, respectively. Age, body mass index, tobacco use, preoperative opioid exposure, and in-hospital opioid consumption were the strongest predictors of postdischarge consumption. A lasso regression model exhibited an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.67-0.81) in predicting postdischarge opioid consumption. External validation of a limited lasso model yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.67 (0.60-0.74). Performance was preserved when evaluated on another institution's guidelines (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.76 [0.72-0.80])., Conclusion: Patient characteristics reliably predict postdischarge opioid consumption in relation to prescribing guidelines for both opioid-naive and exposed populations. This model may be used to help providers confidently follow prescribing guidelines for patients with typical opioid responsiveness and correctly pursue more personalized prescribing for others., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The risk profiles of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) have not been well characterized in multi-national settings with appropriate controls. We leveraged electronic health record (EHR) data from 277 international hospitals representing 414,602 patients with COVID-19, 2.3 million control patients without COVID-19 in the inpatient and outpatient settings, and over 221 million diagnosis codes to systematically identify new-onset conditions enriched among patients with COVID-19 during the post-acute period. Compared to inpatient controls, inpatient COVID-19 cases were at significant risk for angina pectoris (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.09-1.55), heart failure (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.10-1.35), cognitive dysfunctions (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.07-1.31), and fatigue (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.07-1.30). Relative to outpatient controls, outpatient COVID-19 cases were at risk for pulmonary embolism (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.58-2.76), venous embolism (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.17-1.54), atrial fibrillation (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.13-1.50), type 2 diabetes (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.16-1.36) and vitamin D deficiency (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09-1.30). Outpatient COVID-19 cases were also at risk for loss of smell and taste (RR 2.42, 95% CI 1.90-3.06), inflammatory neuropathy (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.21-2.27), and cognitive dysfunction (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.04-1.33). The incidence of post-acute cardiovascular and pulmonary conditions decreased across time among inpatient cases while the incidence of cardiovascular, digestive, and metabolic conditions increased among outpatient cases. Our study, based on a federated international network, systematically identified robust conditions associated with PASC compared to control groups, underscoring the multifaceted cardiovascular and neurological phenotype profiles of PASC., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Given the growing number of prediction algorithms developed to predict COVID-19 mortality, we evaluated the transportability of a mortality prediction algorithm using a multi-national network of healthcare systems. We predicted COVID-19 mortality using baseline commonly measured laboratory values and standard demographic and clinical covariates across healthcare systems, countries, and continents. Specifically, we trained a Cox regression model with nine measured laboratory test values, standard demographics at admission, and comorbidity burden pre-admission. These models were compared at site, country, and continent level. Of the 39,969 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (68.6% male), 5717 (14.3%) died. In the Cox model, age, albumin, AST, creatine, CRP, and white blood cell count are most predictive of mortality. The baseline covariates are more predictive of mortality during the early days of COVID-19 hospitalization. Models trained at healthcare systems with larger cohort size largely retain good transportability performance when porting to different sites. The combination of routine laboratory test values at admission along with basic demographic features can predict mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Importantly, this potentially deployable model differs from prior work by demonstrating not only consistent performance but also reliable transportability across healthcare systems in the US and Europe, highlighting the generalizability of this model and the overall approach., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Admissions are generally classified as COVID-19 hospitalizations if the patient has a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. However, because 35% of SARS-CoV-2 infections are asymptomatic, patients admitted for unrelated indications with an incidentally positive test could be misclassified as a COVID-19 hospitalization. Electronic health record (EHR)-based studies have been unable to distinguish between a hospitalization specifically for COVID-19 versus an incidental SARS-CoV-2 hospitalization. Although the need to improve classification of COVID-19 versus incidental SARS-CoV-2 is well understood, the magnitude of the problems has only been characterized in small, single-center studies. Furthermore, there have been no peer-reviewed studies evaluating methods for improving classification., Objective: The aims of this study are to, first, quantify the frequency of incidental hospitalizations over the first 15 months of the pandemic in multiple hospital systems in the United States and, second, to apply electronic phenotyping techniques to automatically improve COVID-19 hospitalization classification., Methods: From a retrospective EHR-based cohort in 4 US health care systems in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Illinois, a random sample of 1123 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive patients hospitalized from March 2020 to August 2021 was manually chart-reviewed and classified as "admitted with COVID-19" (incidental) versus specifically admitted for COVID-19 ("for COVID-19"). EHR-based phenotyping was used to find feature sets to filter out incidental admissions., Results: EHR-based phenotyped feature sets filtered out incidental admissions, which occurred in an average of 26% of hospitalizations (although this varied widely over time, from 0% to 75%). The top site-specific feature sets had 79%-99% specificity with 62%-75% sensitivity, while the best-performing across-site feature sets had 71%-94% specificity with 69%-81% sensitivity., Conclusions: A large proportion of SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive admissions were incidental. Straightforward EHR-based phenotypes differentiated admissions, which is important to assure accurate public health reporting and research., (©Jeffrey G Klann, Zachary H Strasser, Meghan R Hutch, Chris J Kennedy, Jayson S Marwaha, Michele Morris, Malarkodi Jebathilagam Samayamuthu, Ashley C Pfaff, Hossein Estiri, Andrew M South, Griffin M Weber, William Yuan, Paul Avillach, Kavishwar B Wagholikar, Yuan Luo, The Consortium for Clinical Characterization of COVID-19 by EHR (4CE), Gilbert S Omenn, Shyam Visweswaran, John H Holmes, Zongqi Xia, Gabriel A Brat, Shawn N Murphy. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 18.05.2022.)

In recent years, the number of digital health tools with the potential to significantly improve delivery of healthcare services has grown tremendously. However, the use of these tools in large, complex health systems remains comparatively limited. The adoption and implementation of digital health tools at an enterprise level is a challenge; few strategies exist to help tools cross the chasm from clinical validation to integration within the workflows of a large health system. Many previously proposed frameworks for digital health implementation are difficult to operationalize in these dynamic organizations. In this piece, we put forth nine dimensions along which clinically validated digital health tools should be examined by health systems prior to adoption, and propose strategies for selecting digital health tools and planning for implementation in this setting. By evaluating prospective tools along these dimensions, health systems can evaluate which existing digital health solutions are worthy of adoption, ensure they have sufficient resources for deployment and long-term use, and devise a strategic plan for implementation., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: For some SARS-CoV-2 survivors, recovery from the acute phase of the infection has been grueling with lingering effects. Many of the symptoms characterized as the post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) could have multiple causes or are similarly seen in non-COVID patients. Accurate identification of PASC phenotypes will be important to guide future research and help the healthcare system focus its efforts and resources on adequately controlled age- and gender-specific sequelae of a COVID-19 infection., Methods: In this retrospective electronic health record (EHR) cohort study, we applied a computational framework for knowledge discovery from clinical data, MLHO, to identify phenotypes that positively associate with a past positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for COVID-19. We evaluated the post-test phenotypes in two temporal windows at 3-6 and 6-9 months after the test and by age and gender. Data from longitudinal diagnosis records stored in EHRs from Mass General Brigham in the Boston Metropolitan Area was used for the analyses. Statistical analyses were performed on data from March 2020 to June 2021. Study participants included over 96 thousand patients who had tested positive or negative for COVID-19 and were not hospitalized., Results: We identified 33 phenotypes among different age/gender cohorts or time windows that were positively associated with past SARS-CoV-2 infection. All identified phenotypes were newly recorded in patients' medical records 2 months or longer after a COVID-19 RT-PCR test in non-hospitalized patients regardless of the test result. Among these phenotypes, a new diagnosis record for anosmia and dysgeusia (OR 2.60, 95% CI [1.94-3.46]), alopecia (OR 3.09, 95% CI [2.53-3.76]), chest pain (OR 1.27, 95% CI [1.09-1.48]), chronic fatigue syndrome (OR 2.60, 95% CI [1.22-2.10]), shortness of breath (OR 1.41, 95% CI [1.22-1.64]), pneumonia (OR 1.66, 95% CI [1.28-2.16]), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (OR 1.41, 95% CI [1.22-1.64]) is one of the most significant indicators of a past COVID-19 infection. Additionally, more new phenotypes were found with increased confidence among the cohorts who were younger than 65., Conclusions: The findings of this study confirm many of the post-COVID-19 symptoms and suggest that a variety of new diagnoses, including new diabetes mellitus and neurological disorder diagnoses, are more common among those with a history of COVID-19 than those without the infection. Additionally, more than 63% of PASC phenotypes were observed in patients under 65 years of age, pointing out the importance of vaccination to minimize the risk of debilitating post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 among younger adults., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objective: The Consortium for Clinical Characterization of COVID-19 by EHR (4CE) is an international collaboration addressing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with federated analyses of electronic health record (EHR) data. We sought to develop and validate a computable phenotype for COVID-19 severity., Materials and Methods: Twelve 4CE sites participated. First, we developed an EHR-based severity phenotype consisting of 6 code classes, and we validated it on patient hospitalization data from the 12 4CE clinical sites against the outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and/or death. We also piloted an alternative machine learning approach and compared selected predictors of severity with the 4CE phenotype at 1 site., Results: The full 4CE severity phenotype had pooled sensitivity of 0.73 and specificity 0.83 for the combined outcome of ICU admission and/or death. The sensitivity of individual code categories for acuity had high variability-up to 0.65 across sites. At one pilot site, the expert-derived phenotype had mean area under the curve of 0.903 (95% confidence interval, 0.886-0.921), compared with an area under the curve of 0.956 (95% confidence interval, 0.952-0.959) for the machine learning approach. Billing codes were poor proxies of ICU admission, with as low as 49% precision and recall compared with chart review., Discussion: We developed a severity phenotype using 6 code classes that proved resilient to coding variability across international institutions. In contrast, machine learning approaches may overfit hospital-specific orders. Manual chart review revealed discrepancies even in the gold-standard outcomes, possibly owing to heterogeneous pandemic conditions., Conclusions: We developed an EHR-based severity phenotype for COVID-19 in hospitalized patients and validated it at 12 international sites., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association.)

Coincident with the tsunami of COVID-19-related publications, there has been a surge of studies using real-world data, including those obtained from the electronic health record (EHR). Unfortunately, several of these high-profile publications were retracted because of concerns regarding the soundness and quality of the studies and the EHR data they purported to analyze. These retractions highlight that although a small community of EHR informatics experts can readily identify strengths and flaws in EHR-derived studies, many medical editorial teams and otherwise sophisticated medical readers lack the framework to fully critically appraise these studies. In addition, conventional statistical analyses cannot overcome the need for an understanding of the opportunities and limitations of EHR-derived studies. We distill here from the broader informatics literature six key considerations that are crucial for appraising studies utilizing EHR data: data completeness, data collection and handling (eg, transformation), data type (ie, codified, textual), robustness of methods against EHR variability (within and across institutions, countries, and time), transparency of data and analytic code, and the multidisciplinary approach. These considerations will inform researchers, clinicians, and other stakeholders as to the recommended best practices in reviewing manuscripts, grants, and other outputs from EHR-data derived studies, and thereby promote and foster rigor, quality, and reliability of this rapidly growing field., (©Isaac S Kohane, Bruce J Aronow, Paul Avillach, Brett K Beaulieu-Jones, Riccardo Bellazzi, Robert L Bradford, Gabriel A Brat, Mario Cannataro, James J Cimino, Noelia García-Barrio, Nils Gehlenborg, Marzyeh Ghassemi, Alba Gutiérrez-Sacristán, David A Hanauer, John H Holmes, Chuan Hong, Jeffrey G Klann, Ne Hooi Will Loh, Yuan Luo, Kenneth D Mandl, Mohamad Daniar, Jason H Moore, Shawn N Murphy, Antoine Neuraz, Kee Yuan Ngiam, Gilbert S Omenn, Nathan Palmer, Lav P Patel, Miguel Pedrera-Jiménez, Piotr Sliz, Andrew M South, Amelia Li Min Tan, Deanne M Taylor, Bradley W Taylor, Carlo Torti, Andrew K Vallejos, Kavishwar B Wagholikar, The Consortium For Clinical Characterization Of COVID-19 By EHR (4CE), Griffin M Weber, Tianxi Cai. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 02.03.2021.)

Open, or non-laparoscopic surgery, represents the vast majority of all operating room procedures, but few tools exist to objectively evaluate these techniques at scale. Current efforts involve human expert-based visual assessment. We leverage advances in computer vision to introduce an automated approach to video analysis of surgical execution. A state-of-the-art convolutional neural network architecture for object detection was used to detect operating hands in open surgery videos. Automated assessment was expanded by combining model predictions with a fast object tracker to enable surgeon-specific hand tracking. To train our model, we used publicly available videos of open surgery from YouTube and annotated these with spatial bounding boxes of operating hands. Our model's spatial detections of operating hands significantly outperforms the detections achieved using pre-existing hand-detection datasets, and allow for insights into intra-operative movement patterns and economy of motion., (©2020 AMIA - All rights reserved.)

We leveraged the largely untapped resource of electronic health record data to address critical clinical and epidemiological questions about Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). To do this, we formed an international consortium (4CE) of 96 hospitals across five countries (www.covidclinical.net). Contributors utilized the Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside (i2b2) or Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) platforms to map to a common data model. The group focused on temporal changes in key laboratory test values. Harmonized data were analyzed locally and converted to a shared aggregate form for rapid analysis and visualization of regional differences and global commonalities. Data covered 27,584 COVID-19 cases with 187,802 laboratory tests. Case counts and laboratory trajectories were concordant with existing literature. Laboratory tests at the time of diagnosis showed hospital-level differences equivalent to country-level variation across the consortium partners. Despite the limitations of decentralized data generation, we established a framework to capture the trajectory of COVID-19 disease in patients and their response to interventions., Competing Interests: Competing interestsR.B. and A.M. are shareholders of Biomeris s.r.l., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

Background: Opioid misuse is currently plaguing the US. Efforts to reduce this include opioid prescribing education (OPE). Orthopaedic residents often prescribe opioids but, their education is unknown., Methods: A survey was sent to orthoapedic residency program directors (PDs) regarding their program's controlled substance (CS) policies and knowledge of local CS regulations., Results: There were 60 (36.8%) completed surveys. 54 (90.0%) programs allow resident outpatient opioid prescribing. Nine (16.7%) programs require individual DEA registration and 7 (13.0%) were unsure about DEA registrations. State laws regarding PDMP utilization and OPE for fully licensed physicians were correctly answered by 52 (86.7%) and 43 (71.6%), respectively. 27 (45.0%) programs had a mandatory OPE. Six (10.0%) PDs were unsure about a mandatory OPE. 16 (48.5%) programs that did not confirm an OPE were considering adding one., Conclusions: The majority of programs permit residents outpatient opioid prescribing; less than half provide mandatory OPE. Several PDs were unaware local CS prescribing regulations and education. This study demonstrates opportunities to improve OPE among orthopaedic residencies and PDs' knowledge regarding CS regulations., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)